Leading Leaders Who Lead
Some questions to consider as you evaluate congressional leadership.
To try and flesh out some of why I have been saying what I have been saying about Congressional leadership, here are a series of questions to ask when trying to evaluate the quality of such leaders.
Majority or minority?
Congressional leaders in the majority have a lot more power, and therefore look far more effective, than leaders of minority parties. Majority parties can pass legislation and can control what is scheduled for a vote, and what never sees the light of day. Votes are the fuel that powers Congress. If you don’t have votes, you are weak. Period.
House or the Senate?
The minority in the House has practically no power. This is why, for those of us old enough to remember, the Republicans were so frustrated from 1954 to 1994, because they never controlled the House at all during that period. The House majority controls what bills are voted on and which aren’t. There is some nuance beyond that, but it does really boil down to control of the legislative calendar (i.e., what bills make it to the floor for a vote, and those that do not).
I think some people have a conception of the House that any member can get an idea on the floor for debate, and maybe convince enough colleagues to go along. That’s not how it works.
It should be stressed that individual Senators have a lot of personal prerogatives, like being able to put holds on various actions in the Chamber, that members of the House don’t have.
Blocking or Making Policy?
I think it is important, in conjunction with the previous two questions, to ask if the goal is to engage in a negative (to block something) or to engage in positive policymaking.
Blocking is largely impossible for the minority in the House.
Blocking in the Senate occurs via the filibuster, or in a few other procedural ways that do not exist in the House.
The minority can almost never engage in positive policymaking. I only say “almost” because there are likely some highly unlikely, fanciful scenarios one might conjure, but they are tantamount to winning football games via a combo of successful Hail Marys, onside kicks, and a series of last-ditch hook-and-latteral plays–I mean, yes, possible in theory, but not especially likely, to put it mildly.
Now or then?
It is important to understand that the US party system went through a substantial re-sorting, as noted in the previous point, in the mid-1990s. It has deepened partisan polarization and has made bipartisan cooperation less likely.
Partisan polarization has been a significant influence on the Senate. For evidence, go look at Senate confirmation votes for SCOTUS nominees or cabinet members. Not that long ago, those were almost always super-majority, bipartisan votes. Increasingly, however, they have become starkly partisan.
In terms of leadership pre-1994, I would again note the dominance of the Democratic Party, especially in the House. Note the seat margins in the 60s, 70s, and 80s as listed here. In the 102nd Congress (1991-1993), on the very cusp of the Republican takeover after the 1994 elections, the Democrats had a 100-seat margin over the Republicans. One. Hundred. Seats.
As I noted in some comments in one of yesterday’s posts, the last Senate that LBJ led (the 86th), his party had 65 seats.
Other factors in a “now v. then” frame include factors like the whole “government shutdown” issue started in the Carter administration, and the filibuster has evolved considerably over time, to include changes to the cloture rule, but more importantly, the evolution of the procedural filibuster that we have seen really affects the workings of the Senate over recent decades.
As a general rule, I think we have to see the 1930s (New Deal Era)-Mid-1990s as a distinct era of the US party system, with the 21st Century being its own distinct era. Comparisons of leadership have to take this into account.
Hall of Famer or journeyman?
If your go-to comparison is LBJ or Nancy Pelosi, that is unfair, as that is like saying, “Why can’t my journeyman QB play like a Hall of Famer?”
It struck me after the interchange yesterday, but the fact that when we need to conjure an impressive Seante Leader, we go to LBJ is incredibly telling. LBJ was the Senate Majority Leader roughly 70 years ago. The fact that no one else leaps to mind as an example should tell you that there haven’t been a lot of stellar Senate Majority Leaders.
Side note: the famous series of photos (and they are amazing!) of Johnson deploying “The Treatment” was when he was President. And I would hasten to add that, for all of Johnson’s leadership skills, it needs to be remembered that he was a one-term president (he famously chose not to seek re-election).
How emotionally vested am I?
I think we all have to stop and ask ourselves, How much am I allowing emotional investment to cloud my assessments?
If you have ever watched a football game (or any sporting contest) wherein you have no real rooting interest, but the people you are watching with do, it is easy to see how much emotion goes into assessing players, coaches, and especially officiating.
The following is a good summation of what a lot of Dems have been saying in the past few weeks.
Except that isn’t an actual quote from any present-day Dem. It’s a modified quote from Erick Erickson in 2014 complaining about Congressional Repubs capitulating too easily to Obama and Dem leadership during shutdowns.
I never thought I’d see the day when Dems would become just as delusional as Repubs about their ability to dictate policy when they aren’t the ones in power.
@Kylopod:
QFE.
There’s some nuts in our party. But the Sevate vote this week means they haven’t taken over quite yet.
Democratic voters upset a shutdown ended. Wild. Maybe it’s a sign to buy a MegaMillions ticket.
@DK:
This was the longest shutdown in history, breaking the record set by Repubs in 2019. When it comes to the party orchestrating the shutdown eventually caving, the dynamics are the same in both cases. Repubs back in the day were complaining about McConnell and Boehner et al in pretty much the same the terms the Dems are now doing for Schumer and Jeffries.
But I should be clear that the delusion I’m talking about is purely with regard to the minority party understanding the limits to their power. I was in no way trying to imply that Dems are equivalent to Repubs when it comes to holding QAnon-tier beliefs or something.
The party out of power, as you have been pointing out, has little power. It can block stuff and message. That’s about it. What I dont think you are emphasizing enough is that its also an uneven playing field as the Republicans are all too willing to hurt people and they have a POTUS willing to engage in probably illegal actions to make sure their favored groups are more protected. While in the long run I still believe that engaging in ethical behavior is the right thing to do, in the short run it can cost you.
Steve
Maybe tangentially related but, I’m sure you know that a very important part of why the NFL is so dominant among America’s sport fans is gambling. There are not many reasons for fans to watch a mid-season game between two mediocre teams. That is, unless you have money on the betting line, the point spread. Then you become invested in a different kind of way.
This is only true for Republican Senators. Reasons unclear, as they would appear to operate under the same rules and all.
Good times. And I believe for only two congresses back to 1931.
This business of a near equal split is unusual, through most of history we’ve had a dominant sun party and a moon party. And my great fear is we’re transitioning to GOPs being the sun party.
What disturbs me, reading the OP and the comments is just how utterly incapable of either strategy or tactics all of you seem to be. Leaders become leaders by leading. Losing fights can be victories nevertheless. With just a little foresight and less limp-dick this could have been a moral victory that left the enemy with a Pyrrhic victory. Instead we looked like whipped dogs crawling off into a corner, and at the precise moment when the party was on a high.
I’m here, free and happy and successful because when I looked at the impossibility of success and the certainty of ignominious failure I said, fuck that.
The Democratic Party needs fewer academics and lawyers and more soldiers, marines and apparently, criminals.
In the Senate, the majority also can never engage in positive policy making without the consent of the minority.
The minority has one major power — just refuse to assist, and let it all burn. It’s a brutal scorched earth policy that gets progressively more costly and should only really be used when they have goals that are worth the damage.
And, when Dems use it, the administration will absolutely try to ensure that people Democrats care about will be the first to feel pain. And, as it goes longer, it starts hurting people the Republicans also care about — business leaders, the upper classes, etc.
I don’t think it’s too much of an ask for our leaders to either not severely hurt the poor people, or to keep going to make sure the Republican constituencies actually feel enough pain to start pressuring the Republicans.
There were only two outcomes that I think were worth this level of pain to pursue: 1. Kill the filibuster. 2. Break the Republicans.
Killing the filibuster is straightforward — it would make the country far more responsive to elections, which in theory lets the country course correct in the future.
Breaking the Republicans is less straightforward, and very iffy. The Republican hold on power is strong, but brittle, and is based on an assumption of inevitability. It depends on no one breaking ranks, and when that does happen it’s going to be a major crisis for them.
To be clear, continuing wasn’t going to magically move all the pain to Republican constituencies. It was going to keep hurting people Democrats ostensibly care about too. And it would get worse.
Screwing up Thanksgiving and the Christmas shopping season was the leverage. It’s where the shutdown would have to go in order to have any hope of creating enough pressure to move Republicans.
If they aren’t going to pursue this, there was no point in even starting down that path. That’s where the worst leadership decisions were made.
It’s like if Sherman’s March started in New York, laid waste to Pennsylvania, and then petered out halfway through Virginia and never got to Georgia. We should demand better.
@Kylopod:
A lot of it is driven by social media tbh. A lot of people…
– ex post facto Monday Morning Quarterbacks pretending they wouldn’t have performed outrage had Schumer said no a shutdown
– magical thinkers who originally pooh-poohed the healthcare subsidy demand now pretending Republicans would’ve caved on said subsidies
– Substackers and general blowhards who’ve never won office and would lose badly if they did (especially in purple states) but want to pretend they know political strategy better than Tim Kaine and Abigail Spanberger (spoiler alert: they don’t)
…are not *really* outraged. They don’t even know what they’re mad about, reverse engineering explanations from unrealistic expectations.
They’re just performing outrage based on whatever their algorithms and Russian-bot infected feeds tell them to be angry about. Reminiscent of all the algorithm-addled “pro-Palestine” fake allies. They’ll move on to the next slogan soon as Putin gives the order. Whole shutdown episode will be forgotten quicker than you can say “Trump is a pedophile and the the Epstein Files weren’t a distraction.”
It will continue to be problem no matter what happens in 2026 and 2028, that many of us spend too much time in online bubbles. Especially for liberals and conservatives craving non-tribal politics that actually solves problems and advances justice, domestic tranquility, and the general welfare. R.I.P. to those Americans.
How quickly we forget! During the Affordable Care Act debates, Republicans were the minority in both chambers of Congress. In fact, Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority. ….And guess who the president was? While no Republicans voted for the ACA, they certainly influenced and altered the legislation to a point it was almost unrecognizable.
Even when in the minority, a party still has tools to shape legislation:
The House can suspend its own rules to fast-track broadly supported bills. This requires a two-thirds majority, meaning minority votes are essential. While often used for noncontroversial measures, major bipartisan bills sometimes use this route to avoid amendments.
Minority members can propose amendments during floor debates or in committees. These can force politically difficult votes or influence policy details.
The motion to recommit is probably the most powerful tool of the minority. It allows them to send a bill back to committee with instructions—often used to insert last-minute changes or highlight issues.
But, but ,but…the minority has no power (when the Democrats are the minority). Please, just quit throwing so much shade to weak leaders.
@HelloWorld: If your go-to example is what Republicans did to stall passage of the ACA, that isn’t doing for your argument what you think it is.
More importantly, though, this isn’t about what the minority party can do during the regular legislation process. It’s about what they can do during government shutdowns.
Did the 2013 shutdown cause the ACA to be defunded?
Did the 2019 one get Trump’s wall built?
If you think the Dem leadership was hapless during this year’s shutdown, you’re gonna have to admit the same thing about GOP leadership in previous shutdowns, or else you’re going to be inconsistent.
The bottom line is, government shutdowns don’t work as a means of effecting policy change. They never have, they never will.
In fairness to the D’s of 2009-10 HelloWorld, that was back when a significant number of people thought that negotiating with your political opponents was still the way to do things, and before the McConnell policy of filibustering everything became apparent. Heck, arguably it was a throwback to the pre-Gingrich days of the House where the goal was to get large majorities to pass legislation, not 50%+1.
Gingrich’s tactics broke the House, McConnell’s broke the Senate, and the country has been burning as its most important Constitutional branch flails about accomplishing almost nothing and surrendering more and more power to the executive and judicial branches ever since.
@Kylopod:
Nothing in my post is about “stalling”. Republicans greatly altered the ACA.
Well, I can see parts of it from my vacation house in Bisbee, Az!
If you read my posts from yesterday, we will never know. There are caucuses in the house that were freaking out if they had to revote on this thing.
I don’t mean to sound so harsh, but I am sick that there is so much defense of the “status quo democrat”. Its actually unthinkable and quite perplexing that Trump was re-elected and that says it all about the Democratic party, so everyone – please – just wake up.
@Just Another Ex-Republican: I think you are forgetting how Tom Delay shut Dems out of everything – wouldn’t even whip them, how Newt demonized them…even Boehner, who is quit civilized now, railroaded his priorities priorities into Democratic legislation. In what world did the republicans ever welcome negotiation with the Democrats? They always play hard ball.
@Kylopod: Exactly.
@Gustopher:
They can via the reconcilitation process. The BBB is a real thing, for example.
@Gustopher: Recognizing that I support, and have for years, doing away with the filibuster, I would note that none of the Dems are even asking for that.
So it is problematic to pretend like/hope that they were going to fight for that outcome.
@Michael Reynolds:
The post is about trying to explain how things ctually work and what barriers exist and or how things have changed. It is kind of unfair to judge it as an attempt at strategizing. It was, in parrt, to answer a question you raised yesterday.
You say you don’t intend to insult, but you really do a pretty good job of doing so.
@HelloWorld:
Pfft. It says it all about white American men that a supermajority of their votes went to an incompetent, unqualified pedo over Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. And that they’re more inclined to point fingers at Democrats than “wake up” and have a come to Jesus about their own racism and sexism. In that respect, Trump’s election is not perplexing at all. The demographics that elected him still don’t want to admit the real reasons why.
“The Democratic Party” made us do it. Uh huh. Sure. Lol
@HelloWorld:
But, rather importantly, they lost the filibuster-proof majority during the process, which is one of the reasons that there is no public option–some of this is detailed in c10 of A Different Democracy.
But you are comparing apples to oranges (at best). Yes, there are ways to influence, through the amendment process, the content of legislation if you can form specific coalitions over specific provisions (you still need majority votes to get amendments passed–the minority can’t alter legislation on its own).
But all of that has nothing whatsoever to do with a minority being able to use a shutdown to force a legislative outcome.
@Kylopod:
If Republicans had ever had the shutdown Democrats just had in the minority, conservatives would be strutting around cocky af, waving American flags, taunting their critics on how they won the argument, controlled the narrative, drove down the opposition president’s approval, got the public to blame Dems, set themselves up for election victory etc. And so they’d quickly have most of the media and electorate saying the same.
The Democratic rank-and-file has so internalized being losers from their 2024 PTSD they can’t take a W. It’s like we want to be weak. Would it kill liberals to project a little positive swagger, instead of the constant effete defeatism? Gee whiz.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Why is that “important”? They still had the majority, and it was a weak Joe Lieberman who screwed us on the public option. Why can’t you just admit that Democrats are poor fighters, have no conviction and that Republicans can get things done, even when they are a minority? History provers this weather you want to see it or not. You want to address the structure of the party – well, I think you have to start with conviction.
@HelloWorld:
.
It’s important for understanding what the final product was.
You’re right!
That’s all we need to know, and it is self-evidently true!
I mean, why even bother trying to understand any of this!!
@Steven L. Taylor:
Hoocouldanode!!?
Often I run across this notion that those in charge should be able to do what we want them to do, regardless of the reality of the situation.
Knowing this doesn’t make one immune to the feeling. Like blaming Waze for the traffic. It should know the magic, mystical route free of traffic, in the middle of a heavy rainstorm, at rush hour, on a busy day.
@HelloWorld:
I can’t tell if you have really good eyes and never actually vacation in that house or if you’re blind and only recently drove the 9 or so miles to the border. The wall has been there so long there’s an annual volleyball game using the wall in the Naco area. Wallyball dates back to the 70s…
I’m struck by the expectation that anyone — much less a leader, good or bad — should be able to perfectly predict the behavior of another human.
Even more striking when we’re talking about predicting the individual behavior of 1+ humans.
Even even more striking considering that the prediction, made at T1, should hold over # days and in response to changing dynamics (which I suppose also must be perfectly predicted).
@Mimai: It’s easy if you try!! 😉
@Steven L. Taylor:
Dude, I have a lot of education on this (human behavior), I do this for a living, I have skin in the game, etc. And I’m constantly failing at it.
And tbh, that’s a good thing — imagine the horror of living in a world where we could perfectly predict the behavior of other people. And vice versa. {shudder}
@Matt:
I don’t know what your point is, but the wall was completed in 2017 – https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/final-border-fence-panel-installed-naco
@Steven L. Taylor:
Exactly. And the final product was greatly influenced by Republicans, who were the minority for the entire process. You have said nothing of substance to trash my original presumption that if the CR expired, that house Republicans would have been forced to produce a CR / bill that could pass the Senate. Thats the point of the 60 votes, is it not? I’m wondering if OTB is funded by some think tank that is protecting the old guard. When an educated, professor of PolySci, writer/blogger says what is possible is impossible, it makes one wonder.
@HelloWorld: I followed the ACA legislation very closely. What people forget is that the Democrats tried really hard to get some Republicans to vote for it. They made a lot fo changes to try to attract GOP votes but ultimately the efforts failed and in retrospect it was clear GOP members were just trying to drag it out as long as possible. Was that bad leadership by the Dems? Hard to say. It would clearly have been better if some Repubs had joined in but the Dem leaders should have been more aware of Kennedy’s failing health. OTOH, who would have expected MA to elect a Republican senator?
Steve
@HelloWorld:
You mean the polisci professor who has been openly advocating for substantial electoral and other democratic reforms for quite some time now? You know, like old guard Democrats do…
I don’t know how to say this without being blunt: I am now to the point where I sincerely question your reading comprehension skills and/or your general understanding of politics if you think what I have been writing represents support for the “old guard” of much of anything.
And if you think this place is being funded, well, there is a link at the upper right if you would like to donate, but that goed directly to defraying the costs of the site, I don’t see one red cent.
@HelloWorld:
For anyone who might be confused, I have repeatedly noted the inability of the minority to force the majority to do what that majority does not want to do. I never stated that the minority party has never had any influence over a piece of legislation.
I remain open to an example of a minority that managed such a feat, but none has been provided.
The entire interchange leaves me feeling that either HelloWorld simply does not understand what I am saying or I am being unclear. Seeing as that I have made a substantial effort to explain my position, I have to go with the former explanation over the latter.
There is having a difference of opinion, and then there are issues of basic understanding. I can abide by the first, but get a bit vexed over the second.
As the old slogan used to go in theos PSAs in the 70s: Reading is fundamental.
I will now go and check my account, as I guess there may be some payments I have overlooked…
@Steven L. Taylor:
Yes, I am confused. Not because I don’t have reading comprehension skills as you have said, but because your counter agreements are often fallacies, straw men, and red-herrings. Any thoughts that are contrary to your blessings is met with “thats not how its normally done” or “you don’t understand government” but no substance to back it up. Yes, you seem to be defending the old guard but pretending that you are not. Like I’ve said, throwing shade to the establishment.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Fallacy. It’s impossible for a minority to force a majority to do what the majority does not want to do. However, I provided two SOLID examples of when the minority had HEAVY influence of the final product. You twisted the premise of my statement. If you can refute that without insulting my intelligence, please do but I think I’m done with this thread.
@HelloWorld: I have tried to explain why what you have provided did not come close to what I was asking for.
Again, I allow that I am perhaps not being clear, but I also think you are not trying to understand.
The conversation was never about whether there have ever been bipartisan cooperation in the Congress.
I would remind you that the entire conversation has been about whether the Democrats could have used the shutdown to deliver policy concessions on ACA subsidies (i.e., forcing the majority to do something it does not want to do). It was never, ever about whether minorities have ever had influence over legislation.
Either you truly do not understand what I am saying, or you don’t want to.
@HelloWorld: fortune, is that you?
@becca: I am pretty sure not, as this screen name has been around for a while.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Actually, I do want to understand. I fully accept that you are knowledgeable in this realm, but do feel you misrepresent what the original premise of an argument is. When I said “the CR could expire forcing the house to provide a bill that can pass the senate”, you send me down a slippery slope, I believe, fully knowing that that is possible – procedurally, strategically, etc.
fortune, is that you This is the kind of unproductive comment that makes me wonder why I am participating in this forum again. Without address any point I have been trying to make, you provide a distraction. I have no idea who this Fortune is, probably because if he had ill intentions I ignored him.
@Steven L. Taylor: maybe it’s just me, but there’s a similarity in sentence structure and tone.
I think when commenters choose not to share any personal details it can become suspect as to who or what they really are.
No animosity intended. It’s the world we live in.
@becca:
Haha, that’s a good one. I think I have OVERSHARED personal details about where I’ve lived, my partners former job, what I do for work, etc, etc, etc. But, this is a distraction.
@becca: These kinds of interchanges often have similarities.
HelloWorld says that they live in the DC area (and maybe work in healthcare, IIRC). They also identify as a Democratic voter.
Fortune was a GOP voter and I think May wave lived in Florida? (But I may be misremembering that one).
@Steven L. Taylor: Independent voter but 90% of the time vote Dem. I dropped the D after the DCCC threw Russ Feingold under the bus – a fine senator who should have had party backing (yet they gave it to whats her name, the Republican, from Alaska). I lived in DC for 25 years, left because of crime (mostly), I am a CIO for a healthcare company, still have to go back every other month for work. Live in Az, now. I promise my intentions are always good and understand that finding agreement when the political world is so upside down is often difficult.
@HelloWorld:
that unclear.
Note that my actual goal is to impart understanding because I think that the only way we are going to move forward as a country is if we all have a better understanding of our politics and government.
And I am in a constant quest to understand better myself.
Ugh. I typed a much longer response, but I managed to truncate it.
I am typing from my phone.
Bottom line: I did not intend to send you down any slopes, slippery or otherwise. I was trying to point you to additonal possible points of research that would bolster my point since you do not accept my assertions.
@HelloWorld: So I missed the move to DC.
Here’s a question to ponder: if I am funded by a secret cabal, or have some negative goals here, why do I at least have committed to memory some basics about a pseudonymous commenter and why would I spend this much time in conversation?
@Steven L. Taylor: Well, I do not think you are funded by a secret cabal – but I do know they exist. Tons of blogs and fake bloggers and secretly funded campaign tricks that I am privy to thanks to having lived in DC for so long.
I think the crux of our disagreement is rooted in the proper way to be discontent with the Democratic party. I really believe the way forward is we must get rid of Schumer and Jeffries for people who are true fighters. If we had that – this CR would be very different. The current leaders are only capable of theatrics. And while I respect Nancy Pelosi and understand she know politics and control, she always sounded like she had marbles in her mouth. I think you throw shade to the current guard while I want to see rising voices for a new guard. Massive demands for Schumer to go, give me a Kelly, Schatz, or even a Booker (but maybe not). Jeffreis, just not sold on him though once in a while he does come off well.